Alternate and Fuel Burn Scenario...
#11
Filing an alternate is regulatory under the 123 rule. Alternate fuel is for planning purposes only. You can always decide to divert to a different alternate. Another good idea is to start checking the alternate weather 30 mins. out if the weather is marginal at the destination. It really sucks not being able to get into your alternate.
In 121 you're required to keep tabs on the alt wx while enroute, and file a new one if it's no longer suitable.
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2007
Position: 744 CA
Posts: 4,772
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Posts: 117
When referring to checking the weather at alternate that is true that you are required to check wx and change the alternate if the weather goes below mins. It is hard to do in a non-ACARS aircraft and it depends on whether you have a good dispatcher or not. I guess I was trying to say start looking at other airports in addition to your alternate if weather is marginal at your destination. In regards to the 123 rule you got me on that one, (semantics) but I think everyone got the gist of the conversation.
#15
Disinterested Third Party
Joined APC: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,006
Say you're flying into DFW and your alternate is SAT. You are flying with a low time FO and the weather in DFW ends up being VFR with visual approaches being conducted. On the first approach, the FO is PF and is high and unstable at 1,000 and not making the required adjustments, so you call for a go-around.
At this point you realize once you go-around you will start burning into your alternate fuel.
At this point you realize once you go-around you will start burning into your alternate fuel.
There is no regulation which prevents you from burning into your reserves at your destination, nor that requires you to go to an alternate if you're burning alternate fuel.
That said, if your destination becomes unavailable, then you'd better have sufficient fuel to go elsewhere. I diverted twice last year when crashes closed the field where I was headed, and held once while a mishap was removed, before I could land. It happens.
You'd be hard pressed to explain to an employer, however, why you diverted from an open and available runway at your destination, on a VFR day, simply because you didn't understand how to operate the aircraft or the regulation.
Think about it from a different perspective; if you're diverting because you've allowed a substandard pilot to fly and go around, and you're into your reserves now, do you really want to burn the rest of the fuel going somewhere to let the substandard pilot do it again? If you're into reserves, perhaps you'd be best landing the aircraft and talking about the F/O with it on the ground.
That depends on the operator.
Landing below "emergency fuel" is legal, though unwise.
There is no requirement to always have "fuel required to divert to a dispatched alternate" in domestic operations, or international operations. If one is held and lands with some of the planned fuel burned, or if one has unforecast winds aloft, or if one has had other conditions which have resulted in a higher than anticipated fuel burn, there is not a legal requirement to land with full diversion fuel plus IFR reserves.
One needs to keep options open, but there are places where the options don't really exist. International island fuel reserves, for example, allow a two hour reserve when dispatched to an island location that lacks a suitable alternate; it's not illegal to end up landing with less fuel, and still nowhere else to go. It happens.
Yes, "minimum fuel" very much means something to air traffic control. Do you not understand why?
#16
You're not required to land with alternate fuel; you're required to have it on board before you start the trip.
There is no regulation which prevents you from burning into your reserves at your destination, nor that requires you to go to an alternate if you're burning alternate fuel.
That said, if your destination becomes unavailable, then you'd better have sufficient fuel to go elsewhere. I diverted twice last year when crashes closed the field where I was headed, and held once while a mishap was removed, before I could land. It happens.
You'd be hard pressed to explain to an employer, however, why you diverted from an open and available runway at your destination, on a VFR day, simply because you didn't understand how to operate the aircraft or the regulation.
Think about it from a different perspective; if you're diverting because you've allowed a substandard pilot to fly and go around, and you're into your reserves now, do you really want to burn the rest of the fuel going somewhere to let the substandard pilot do it again? If you're into reserves, perhaps you'd be best landing the aircraft and talking about the F/O with it on the ground.
That depends on the operator.
There's no part of that statement which is true, other than the fact that burning into IFR reserves is legal.
Landing below "emergency fuel" is legal, though unwise.
There is no requirement to always have "fuel required to divert to a dispatched alternate" in domestic operations, or international operations. If one is held and lands with some of the planned fuel burned, or if one has unforecast winds aloft, or if one has had other conditions which have resulted in a higher than anticipated fuel burn, there is not a legal requirement to land with full diversion fuel plus IFR reserves.
One needs to keep options open, but there are places where the options don't really exist. International island fuel reserves, for example, allow a two hour reserve when dispatched to an island location that lacks a suitable alternate; it's not illegal to end up landing with less fuel, and still nowhere else to go. It happens.
Yes, "minimum fuel" very much means something to air traffic control. Do you not understand why?
There is no regulation which prevents you from burning into your reserves at your destination, nor that requires you to go to an alternate if you're burning alternate fuel.
That said, if your destination becomes unavailable, then you'd better have sufficient fuel to go elsewhere. I diverted twice last year when crashes closed the field where I was headed, and held once while a mishap was removed, before I could land. It happens.
You'd be hard pressed to explain to an employer, however, why you diverted from an open and available runway at your destination, on a VFR day, simply because you didn't understand how to operate the aircraft or the regulation.
Think about it from a different perspective; if you're diverting because you've allowed a substandard pilot to fly and go around, and you're into your reserves now, do you really want to burn the rest of the fuel going somewhere to let the substandard pilot do it again? If you're into reserves, perhaps you'd be best landing the aircraft and talking about the F/O with it on the ground.
That depends on the operator.
There's no part of that statement which is true, other than the fact that burning into IFR reserves is legal.
Landing below "emergency fuel" is legal, though unwise.
There is no requirement to always have "fuel required to divert to a dispatched alternate" in domestic operations, or international operations. If one is held and lands with some of the planned fuel burned, or if one has unforecast winds aloft, or if one has had other conditions which have resulted in a higher than anticipated fuel burn, there is not a legal requirement to land with full diversion fuel plus IFR reserves.
One needs to keep options open, but there are places where the options don't really exist. International island fuel reserves, for example, allow a two hour reserve when dispatched to an island location that lacks a suitable alternate; it's not illegal to end up landing with less fuel, and still nowhere else to go. It happens.
Yes, "minimum fuel" very much means something to air traffic control. Do you not understand why?
Most importantly, you aren't going to get any Hard 8 if you go to SAT.
#17
Some of the coastal airports on the west coast can go from clear and a million to CAT-III in about five minutes.
#18
Very fine technicality... what if the DEST TAF still did not meet the 123 requirements? You're still technically "enroute", is it kosher to burn fuel and remove your option to divert to a legal ALT just because the METAR is VFR? No issue if you had plenty of gas of course.
Some of the coastal airports on the west coast can go from clear and a million to CAT-III in about five minutes.
Some of the coastal airports on the west coast can go from clear and a million to CAT-III in about five minutes.
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Feb 2016
Posts: 602
Say you're flying into DFW and your alternate is SAT. You are flying with a low time FO and the weather in DFW ends up being VFR with visual approaches being conducted. On the first approach, the FO is PF and is high and unstable at 1,000 and not making the required adjustments, so you call for a go-around.
At this point you realize once you go-around you will start burning into your alternate fuel. So are you:
1) required to go to the alternate at this point?
2) required to declare an emergency if you want to land at your destination?
3) not required to do anything; no action is needed, just come around and land again?
4) required to contact dispatch to have alt removed?
This was a question posed by an LCA but I've heard a few different answers so far.
At this point you realize once you go-around you will start burning into your alternate fuel. So are you:
1) required to go to the alternate at this point?
2) required to declare an emergency if you want to land at your destination?
3) not required to do anything; no action is needed, just come around and land again?
4) required to contact dispatch to have alt removed?
This was a question posed by an LCA but I've heard a few different answers so far.
#20
[QUOTE=JohnBurke;255434
There's no part of that statement which is true, other than the fact that burning into IFR reserves is legal.
Landing below "emergency fuel" is legal, though unwise.
There is no requirement to always have "fuel required to divert to a dispatched alternate" in domestic operations, or international operations. If one is held and lands with some of the planned fuel burned, or if one has unforecast winds aloft, or if one has had other conditions which have resulted in a higher than anticipated fuel burn, there is not a legal requirement to land with full diversion fuel plus IFR reserves.
One needs to keep options open, but there are places where the options don't really exist. International island fuel reserves, for example, allow a two hour reserve when dispatched to an island location that lacks a suitable alternate; it's not illegal to end up landing with less fuel, and still nowhere else to go. It happens.
Yes, "minimum fuel" very much means something to air traffic control. Do you not understand why?[/QUOTE]
I'll take that hit for a poor post.
Min fuel has a actual ICAO meaning: advisory in nature,
I mixed up FAA dispatch fuel requirements and my companies training on operations while airborne.
Yes I have used Island Reserves before and one can land below the two hours of fuel. It is a dispatch requirement like you stated.
There's no part of that statement which is true, other than the fact that burning into IFR reserves is legal.
Landing below "emergency fuel" is legal, though unwise.
There is no requirement to always have "fuel required to divert to a dispatched alternate" in domestic operations, or international operations. If one is held and lands with some of the planned fuel burned, or if one has unforecast winds aloft, or if one has had other conditions which have resulted in a higher than anticipated fuel burn, there is not a legal requirement to land with full diversion fuel plus IFR reserves.
One needs to keep options open, but there are places where the options don't really exist. International island fuel reserves, for example, allow a two hour reserve when dispatched to an island location that lacks a suitable alternate; it's not illegal to end up landing with less fuel, and still nowhere else to go. It happens.
Yes, "minimum fuel" very much means something to air traffic control. Do you not understand why?[/QUOTE]
I'll take that hit for a poor post.
Min fuel has a actual ICAO meaning: advisory in nature,
I mixed up FAA dispatch fuel requirements and my companies training on operations while airborne.
Yes I have used Island Reserves before and one can land below the two hours of fuel. It is a dispatch requirement like you stated.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post